Brian, >>> Brian, changing the 64 bit boundary is such a big change that I would >>> claim it is far outside the scope of advancing 4291 to Internet standard. >>> >> >> Agreed. > > Of course. The point is only that it's a parameter in the design of SLAAC, > whose value is set by the address architecture. If your statement is that we only have the 64 bit boundary because of SLAAC I believe you are wrong. Can you provide any support for that view? If I understand you correctly, your proposal is to change the fixed 64 bit Interface-ID length in IPv6 to a variable one, with an exception for links where SLAAC is used. How do you practically suggest to do this, given the issues raised in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7421#section-4.1 ? Do you think this change is appropriate in the context of advancing 4291? Do you have implementation reports and are there not interoperability problems here? Best regards, Ole
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP